No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Abstract Background Despite the efforts of leading statistical authorities and experts worldwide and the inherent dangers of interpretative errors in clinical research, misuses of statistical significance remain a common practice in the field of public health. Currently, there is a need to attempt to quantify this phenomenon. Methods 97 studies were randomly selected within the PubMed database. An evaluation scale for the interpretation and presentation of statistical results (SRPS) was adopted. The maximum achievable score was 4 points. The abstracts and the full texts of the manuscripts were evaluated separately to highlight any differences in presentation. In this regard, a paired Student t-test was implemented. Results All studies failed to adopt statistical significance as a continuous measure of compatibility between the model and the test result. The vast majority of them did not provide information on the validation of the model used. However, in most cases, all results were reported in full within the manuscripts. Substantial differences (a-f) between abstracts (a) and full texts (f) were highlighted when applying the SRPS (null hypothesis, P<.0001, a-f=1.2, Cohen’s D=1.7; a-f=0.5 hypothesis, P<.0001, a-f=0.7, Cohen’s D=1.0). Conclusion When contextualized in the current scenario, these findings provide evidence of widespread and severe shortcomings in the use and interpretation of statistical significance measures in clinical and public health research during 2023. Therefore, it is essential for academic journals to compulsorily demand higher scientific quality standards.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.